Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swissqual

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swissqual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reputable third-party sources for this company, in my opinion this is not notable enough for an article. It's been marked as not being notable since June 2010. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of three-quality sourcing yields a fail of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.